I think the issue isn't whether we should go to war or not (or whether going to war in general or not)...it's how that decision is arrived at. At least, I think that's what you're getting at. If that's correct, and my assumption that creating a manditory military service is a *tool* to making the correct answer to the question of going to war or not is correct, then *my* point is that the *tool* of manditoary military service a) won't work and b) is impractical.

I believe I've outlined the impractical part, but I think I can come up with other reasons if necessary.

As for the won't work part...well, that's a much harder debate, but which *partically* depends upon the impracticality. That is, sometimes the right answer is wrong because it's impractical (we deal with this sort of thing in the technology world all the time). Of course, was it *really* the right answer, then? Of course, that's assuming that I consider manditory military service the *right* answer...which I don't. But, I also don't think it's practical (even if it *was* the right one).

And, obviously, when experience is available, we can draw upon that for insight. And manditory military service isn't new; in fact, I believe the Swiss practice it today. However, *I* certainly can't use that experience to argue my point, since I'm not familiar with that type of history (or current affairs).

So, I don't think it'll work from a practical perspective. From a philosophical perspective, I don't think it's the right answer.

But, I don't think it's about whether or not we should go to war, because I don't think it deters that. I can certainly answer the question of what circumstances I would go to war (or my children), but I don't think that's relevant to this discussion (btw, from a full disclosure perspective, I would probably be found in that medical group that wouldn't have to serve, anyway; but I *do* have three daughters, and the thought of them being anywhere *near* the front line is as abominable to me as almost the worst thing I can think of).

And the reason I don't think it's relevant is that I don't see the answer being different than if there *were* manditory military service. On top of that fact, it would have other consequences (side-effects) that would hurt more than help.

Oh, and I might add....as another argument as to why Congress/etc. wouldn't be deterred because their children were in the military: they're children would *never* be on the front line where dying would take place (or other, possibly worse, non-dying stuff like bio-warfare, etc.)....guaranteed.

Dan

I'm not sure how this discussion jumped from universal service (which the original article was about, I believe) to the draft. I already mentioned in a previous post that I wasn't against the draft. I'm against universal service.

So if you're trying to convince me that the draft is a good thing, then fine....I agree. Take away the exceptions to it? Sure (though I *am* against putting females on the front lines, but that's a separate issue).

So, from that perspectice, sure, it's the end of the discussion (since we agree). No problems there.

Dan